NY Sun: McCain 'more ready for the challenge than is Mr. Obama'

The New York Sun ran an editorial today that lauds the promptness and the wisdom of John McCain's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. McCain denounced Russia's invasion of Georgia and clearly called it for what it was: an assault on Western values with the goal of weakening a nation striving to become part of the Western and democratic world.

The Sun writes that we should not be surprised at the rapid response by McCain (compared to Barack Obama's tardy and weak, initial response-urging "calm") since he was an early critic of Donald Rumsfeld and was an early supporter and advocate of the surge strategy that has worked so well in Iraq.

Their view of Barack Obama's approach-not so complimentary.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, framed the issue not as one of values but as one of sovereignty. "The UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world," he said, an argument that just as easily might have been used against, say, the liberation of Iraq, or might be used in the future against an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. No one knows what conflicts the four years between 2008 and 2012 will bring, what will be the South Ossetia of 2010, the obscure region that suddenly becomes the focal point of a global crisis. But by the evidence so far Mr. McCain is more ready for the challenge than is Mr. Obama.

Under Barack Obama's language, any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities-either by Israel or America-would be a violation of that nation's sovereignty. If this does not indicate that Barack Obama will not have "all options" on the table, maybe this other statement of his to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof would:

If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist.

Those options don't exist. By so clearly laying out his oppostion to such options, Barack Obama has unilaterally diminished American influence over Iran.

The mullahs are dancing -- that is if they dance -- in their offices.

The New York Sun ran an editorial today that lauds the promptness and the wisdom of John McCain's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. McCain denounced Russia's invasion of Georgia and clearly called it for what it was: an assault on Western values with the goal of weakening a nation striving to become part of the Western and democratic world.

The Sun writes that we should not be surprised at the rapid response by McCain (compared to Barack Obama's tardy and weak, initial response-urging "calm") since he was an early critic of Donald Rumsfeld and was an early supporter and advocate of the surge strategy that has worked so well in Iraq.

Their view of Barack Obama's approach-not so complimentary.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, framed the issue not as one of values but as one of sovereignty. "The UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world," he said, an argument that just as easily might have been used against, say, the liberation of Iraq, or might be used in the future against an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. No one knows what conflicts the four years between 2008 and 2012 will bring, what will be the South Ossetia of 2010, the obscure region that suddenly becomes the focal point of a global crisis. But by the evidence so far Mr. McCain is more ready for the challenge than is Mr. Obama.

Under Barack Obama's language, any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities-either by Israel or America-would be a violation of that nation's sovereignty. If this does not indicate that Barack Obama will not have "all options" on the table, maybe this other statement of his to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof would:

If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist.

Those options don't exist. By so clearly laying out his oppostion to such options, Barack Obama has unilaterally diminished American influence over Iran.